Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The dispute in the present appeal is between the children of Late Dr. Pooran Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deceased’). The genealogy tree of the family of Late Dr. Pooran Singh is as under:-

Dr. Pooran Singh I (Jaswant Kaur) wife

I

I I I I I

T.S. Khurana (Son) Plaintiff No.1 Jasbir Kau (Dauther)

Plaintiff No.2

Inderjit Singh (Son) Def No.1

Manjit Singh(Son) Def No.2

Manmohan Singh (Son)

No.3

2. In the year 1993 Commodore T.S.Khurana (Retd) and Dr. Jasbir Kaur Khera instituted a suit seeking partition of property bearing Municipal No.C-511, Defence Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Suit Property’) and division of the movable assets of the deceased.

3. Commodore T.S.Khurana and Dr. Jasbir Kaur Khera were the plaintiffs. Their brothers Inderjit Singh, Manjit Singh and Manmohan Singh were impleaded as defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. In our decision we shall be referring to the parties by their nomenclature in the suit.

4. It was pleaded in the plaint that the deceased was residing in an area which is now in Pakistan and owned ancestral properties there. On the partition of the country in the year 1947 he migrated to India. In lieu of the ancestral properties left behind by him in Pakistan the deceased was allotted a plot of land ad-measuring 350 square yards bearing Municipal No.C-511, Defence Colony, New Delhi on which he constructed a building comprising a ground floor, a first floor, a second floor and a terrace which construction was supervised by plaintiff No.1 and his wife who also contributed towards the construction of the building. The mother of the parties expired on February 15, 1985. After the death of his wife the deceased was a shattered man and completely lost his bearings. The plaintiff No.1 was his favourite son and that he disliked defendant No.3 because of his rebellious ways and violent nature. This caused a strain between the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3. On one occasion the defendant No.3 had even slapped the wife of the plaintiff No.1. In the year 1987 the plaintiff No.1 retired from the Indian Navy and when he expressed an intention to stay with the deceased he was welcomed to reside in the suit property. But, the wife of RFA (OS) No.12/2011 Page 3 of 58 the defendant No.3 made life miserable for the plaintiff No.1 forcing him to move out of the suit property. On the other hand the defendants No.1 to 3 forced the deceased to let them reside in the suit property. During the last days of his life the deceased was suffering from senile dementia and ultimately expired on June 28, 1992. During the last days of his life the deceased was a bundle of nerves; totally incoherent and confused and dependent on others for his daily needs. A letter dated November 12, 1991 written by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff No.1 was a testament of the deteriorating health of the deceased. The deceased was admitted in a hospital on various occasions for the period from July 21, 1991 till his death on June 28, 1992. The defendants Nos.1 to 3 took advantage of the ill-health of the deceased and made him write on dotted lines and created Wills dated February 12, 1991, January 04, 1992 and January 14, 1992 in their favour. Had the deceased executed a Will out of his own free will he would have definitely told the plaintiff No.1 of the same since he was his favourite son. The fact of the matter was that the deceased had died intestate and had not executed any Will out of his own free will during his lifetime. Being class-I heirs of the deceased, the plaintiffs and other children of the deceased i.e. the defendants Nos.1 to 3 became entitled to 1/5th (20%) share each in the suit property and movables owned by the deceased. So pleading, the plaintiffs prayed that the suit property be partitioned by metes and bounds as also the movable estate of the deceased.

5. In their written statements, the defendants Nos.1 to 3 pleaded that the properties left behind by him in Pa